Minutes of the University Senate Meeting of November 13, 2002

Present: H. Alley, K. Aoki, E. Bailey, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, C. Bybee, V. Cartwright, J. Earl, A. Elliott, C. Ellis, L. Freinkel, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, M. Hallock, D. Herrick, P. Keyes, D. Leubke, M. Linman, G. Luks, W.A. Marcus, G. McLauchlan, C. Mc Nelly (nvp), S. Midkiff, M. Myagkov, R. Ponto, M. Ravassipour, M. Russo, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer (nvp), C. Smith (nvp), B. Strawn, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott, R. Zimmerman

Excused: F. Cogan, M. Epstein, R. Horner, A. Morrogh, M. Partch

Absent: L. Alpert, B. Blonigen, R. Graff, M. Holland, K. Merrell, L. Skalnes, D. Soper, C. Sundt, J. Wasko

CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:11 p.m. in the EMU Fir room.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

The minutes from the October 9, 2002 meeting were approved as distributed. President McLauchlan also took a moment to acknowledge and introduced eight new Senators. The five new student Senators are Eric Bailey, Andy Elliot, Michael Linman, Mena Ravassipour, and Ben Strawn. The three new non-voting classified staff participants are Carla McNelly, romance languages, Ed Singer, registrar’s office, and Cheri Smith, computer and information science.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Question and answer period with President Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer identified three major matters concerning the senate, university, and larger community:

1. The university’s budget. The state of Oregon faces a $1.3 billion shortfall between the revenues and the community service level needed to carry existing state programs forward over the next two years. It is a serious situation magnified by continued budget cutting during the course of this biennium (ending June 30, 2003). The administration is anticipating how the university should budget through a time in which the state revenues continue to fall and with no guarantee of an affirmative vote in January 2003 on Measure 28 (to temporarily increase income taxes). Although no one likes the planned tuition surcharge, it provides a means for the university to maintain quality education while allowing students to progress toward their degrees in the most expeditious way, should the income tax legislation fail.

2. Electioneering practices in the State of Oregon. Public employees are prohibited from campaigning or taking positions on election measures during company time with company resources. The university will observe this law. The president encouraged members of the University Senate, their families, friends, and neighbors to become educated on the consequences of their votes. The university will be working hard to obtain a budget to manage the increased numbers of students and to lobby for The Deal (also known as the New Compact With Oregon or the New Partnership with Oregon). The Deal is part of the Strategic Directions plan for the university and its upcoming Comprehensive Campaign to enable greater flexibility to increase our sources of revenue as state funding subsides.

3. PERS. A recent court opinion concluded that the PERS board made major fiscal mistakes over a period of 10 to 12 years. Major corrections by that board or by the legislature, or both, are required to avoid a public agency equivalent of Chapter 11. Its cumulative effect in the next 5 years could be catastrophic in terms of the employer contributions. There is general agreement that the PERS problem must be solved in this next legislative session or there will be no concerted effort to solve the tax reform issue in Oregon.

After his brief remarks, President Frohnmayer responded to a question from Senator Jim Earl, English, saying that PERS is $8 billion in arrears and the estimated amount of employer contributions necessary to meet current PERS requirements will double to approximately 30% of payroll or perhaps higher. In the president’s judgment, any discretionary money available for salary increases or other non-discretionary spending would be swallowed up by attempts to keep the PERS system afloat, which is contrary to the goals of the recent Senate Budget Committee’s White Paper on salary augmentation. The PERS fix will need to come from one of only a few places: the existing beneficiaries in Oregon that are already retired, raising issues of contractual obligation; from people who are already in the system in terms of what benefits they can now expect to be recalculated, based on longer living mortality tables; or from the public tax payer.

Concerning the Comprehensive Campaign, Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, remarked that there is little space on campus for new buildings without eroding current green spaces. He asked if there are any plans to revisit the overall campus plan to address such space questions. President Frohnmayer responded that there is a Campus Planning Committee, which includes faculty members, that is engaged with these issues on a continuing basis. The Comprehensive Campaign is not named the “capital” campaign because one should not assume the major portion of the campaign would be constructing buildings. He noted that time has been spent rebuilding the Lillis Complex and the new Law School plus additions to the Art Museum the Museum of Natural History in the last decade. The core of the Comprehensive Campaign will be devoted to investment in people, which means faculty support, especially endowed professorships and fellowships, student support; and scholarships.

To a question concerning guidance about what to say to prospective new hires regarding the PERS situation, President Frohnmayer suggested paying careful attention to information coming from the human resources office, including benefits information, and from Vice President Lorraine Davis.

Budget and enrollment update with questions and answer period. Provost John Moseley began his remarks saying that if the university is hit with a $6.5 million budget cut in the last quarter of this biennium, it will be impossible maintain the level of courses and programs essential to UO students if alternative funding is not found. Consequently, if alternate funding is not found in the January 2003election, a surcharge will be necessary. He noted that unlike the K-12 possible solution to shorten the school year, the same is not conceivable for the university. To reduce the number of courses (and concomitant faculty and staff) to the level needed to save $6.5 million would mean that virtually none of our students would be able to get the number of courses he or she needs to make the progress expected toward a degree. On average, rather than four 4-credit courses available for each student, there would be three 4-credit courses, causing huge dislocations. Accordingly, the administration met with a large group of student leaders to discuss this issue and all came to the reluctant conclusion to impose a tuition surcharge effective if Measure 28 (to be voted on January 28, 2003) does not pass and the legislature does not provide other funding.

The university would raise about $4 million through a tuition surcharge based on the amount required to maintain courses and programs at status quo. That translates into a $10 per credit hour surcharge applied over all credit hours, which is the current proposal to the State Board of Higher Education for official action in December. The university’s commitment is to provide the quality and quantity of education for which students attend the university. The provost went on to say that if the New Partnership with Oregon (The Deal) is successful, the UO should be able to move into the future on a positive note, although the total amount of money may not be adequate to serve the total number of students that want to come to the university and are qualified to do so. Enrollment has exceeded 20,000 students for the first time in UO history. The most recent count was 20,044 students, about 1,000 more than projected for this year. The admission requirements for the coming year have been raised from a 3.0 GPA to a 3.25 GPA and from 14 college prep courses in high school to 16. Students who don’t meet that base line but otherwise are potentially qualified will be given a full file review. Decisions on how many of those students will be admitted will be based on the projected budget of the state and how many students the university can serve.

Senate Vice President Lowell Bowditch, classics, mentioned there were certain elements of the original draft of the Compact with Oregon that were not accepted by the chancellor; she asked if there have been any further elements of that compact that are not going to be put before the legislature. Provost Moseley replied the only element of significance rejected was the proposal for separate governing boards for the institutions, which the UO administration was ambivalent about because it has pros and cons. President Frohnmayer added that because the State Board of Higher Education rejected the notion of individual campus governing boards, the proposal has been altered so that each institution can set tuition and governed by the state board, a modification that is acceptable to the university’s administration.

Senate President McLauchlan asked if Measure 28 (the temporary income tax increase to offset state budget shortfalls) fails and the tuition surcharge goes into effect, is planning being done for financial aid for students that may not have budgeted for the additional expense. Provost Moseley responded that the proposal has a commitment to spend up to $500,000 in financial aid, and the financial aid office is working on how it will be allocated. In the December tuition bills, the potential amount of the surcharge will be noted and students will know how much additional financial aid they might receive. If the measure fails and the legislature does not act, the tuition surcharge would be due in March, as recommended by the students.

Comments on tuition surcharge from ASUO President Rachel Pilliod. ASUO President Pilliod said the tuition surcharge is a concern for the UO students and is important to think about in the entire context of what students are facing financially. Childcare block grants for student parents were cut from state funding and a cut was made in the Oregon Opportunity Grant, meaning many UO students will be hit harder financially if the tax package fails. The ASUO is attempting to educate students, their partners, and their parents and families regarding the January 28, 2003 Measure 28 vote. If the community understands the issue, there is a stronger likelihood they will vote to increase revenues via the income tax. If the measure fails, a tuition surcharge is the best situation for students to have a longer period of time to pay for the additional expense.

President Pilliod then presented the Oregon Students Association and the ASUO response to The Deal, a diagram illustrating the student’s ideal version of The Deal. For state supports, students are asking for a higher increase for funding education, and by the 2007 – 2009 biennium reaching 100% of the national average for funding education. In addition, a coalition is asking for increased funding for the Oregon Opportunity Grant and full funding of the Childcare Block Grant. The ASUO supports control of setting tuition to remain with the legislature, saying that it is important for students in a public university to have a substantial say in the decisions effecting tuition dollars, and to be able to elect the leaders who make those decisions. The ASUO supports academic program authority and retaining interest earnings.

In addition, President Pilliod noted that the ASUO introduced the idea of shared governance to the OUS system and received a positive response from the chancellor. This idea is based on systems currently in effect in Wisconsin and Minnesota where each campus has a mandatory, institutionalized process for allowing students to have substantial say in university-wide decisions and policies that effect students, student life in particular, and also budgetary decisions and control of student fees.

The Oregon Comprehensive Campaign. Vice President for University Advancement Allan Price provided an overview of the new fundraising plan, the Comprehensive Campaign. He noted the Strategic Directions document forms the basis of the priority setting process, and ultimately the priorities, for the Comprehensive Campaign. He remarked that philanthropy cannot be the answer for all of the university’s concerns or the funding source for all that the university wants to do, in part because there is not enough money and because certain needs of the university do not lend themselves to philanthropy. For example, endowed chairs and professorships, which are focused investments in the university, and particular programs and disciplines that donors find important, do lend themselves to philanthropy. However, raising money for a general fund to cover the cost of living increases for faculty does not lend itself well to philanthropy. In other words, donors are most attracted to “transformative” opportunities. The issue is not dollars raised, but outcomes achieved.

The vice president indicated that the university is now in the silent, campaign-planning phase of the Comprehensive Campaign and is building on the energy generated from the 125^th celebration and the $125 million fundraiser associated with it. This campaign will be progressive over time as the infrastructure investments made in the early phases pay off in the end. The campaign is focused on creating excitement, interest, passion, and ultimately, investment in the predetermined priorities. Because 95 to 98% of money raised for the campaign will be restricted gifts, the priority setting process must identify those things that are most transformative, important to the university, and feasible. Priorities of the Strategic Directions include quality, access, student experience, and the connection between the intellectual prowess of the university and societal problems, specifically research and economic development. Vice President Price noted three criteria on which priorities will be evaluated: (1) external impact of the idea; (2) internal impact, that is, how important it is to the university and what it is trying to achieve, and (3) feasibility, the likelihood of success.

To be successful, this campaign needs to track 3,500 to 4,000 new donors with a capacity to give in the amount of $25,000 and above. Over the course of the next 5 years the UO has to find these new donors, get to know them, begin to understand their interests, connect their interests to programs and priorities at the university, cultivate that interest, and ultimately put them in a situation where they are willing to make an investment. Investing time and energy in the campaign’s beginning for payoff at the end is a process that takes roughly two plus years. In three years time, the university will need to have identified and be working with these new donors in order to have their gifts come in during the course of the campaign.

The $600 million campaign goal figure is a working goal being tested to see what is feasible by soliciting lead gifts from people who might be interested in the campaign priorities. By early 2004, the vice president indicated the university would have a more specific set of goals with a higher likelihood of achievement. The $600 million goal includes the $125 million already raised through the 125^th year celebration campaign. The campaign goals are not restricted simply to raising money, but rather include meeting priorities and having a convergence between the dollars raised and priorities set, increasing the alumni base to broaden the participation of our alumni, and increasing the number of non alumni who become friends and supporters of the university. Vice President Price concluded his remarks saying that currently the university raises money sustainable at roughly $50 million a year, with a goal to increase that figure to $100 million a year by the end of the campaign. This goal is greater than anything the university has done before and can only be accomplished by broadening the donor base and making fundraising everybody’s business.

During a brief discussion period, Senator Marjorie Woollacott, exercise and movement science, asked what are the academic goals of the campaign. The vice president responded that there are numerous goals and referred specifically to the “quality” section of the Strategic Directions document. President Frohnmayer added one way to think about academic goals is to remember that the UO is an AAU university, which carries certain implications in terms of the quality and standing of the university both nationally and internationally. The UO wants to raise its profile and performance as an AAU University.

Discussion of issues to be considered for the Comprehensive Campaign. Members of the senate broke into small groups to brainstorm issues of significance to the university that may be considered for the Comprehensive Campaign. Ideas touched on a variety of needs, such as: means for GTF funding, upgrading of current buildings, increased technology and access, increasing community ties with the university, scholarship and financial aid money, boosting the undergraduate programs, increasing endowed chairs, increasing childcare facilities, and providing more seminar and other meeting spaces, to name a few issues.

OPEN FORUM

A request was made for a senate discussion on enrollment issues and their effect on faculty as well as more discussion on a curricular level about the education of UO students. President McLauchlan remarked that these topics are currently on the FAC agenda, but should be taken up in the senate as well. Vice President Bowditch noted the vision for the Comprehensive Campaign did not address directly the impact of the growing enrollment. President McLauchlan agreed to include enrollment issues as a future senate agenda item.

Senator Julie Novkov, political science, asked how much of the $600 million campaign goal was already committed. President McLauchlan estimated an 8 to 10% cost in overhead. In response to a question regarding where the 8 to 10% cost of the campaign would go, Vice President Davis explained the expense is over a 7-year period and will include expenses such as staffing needs. Fundraising costs typically figures out to 15 or 16 cents on the dollar. She added that the money is not yet raised and is a goal in progress. If the full $600 million is raised, it is likely that a basketball arena will be included in the plans. President McLauchlan noted there is senate interest in exploring the impact of athletics and its relationship to the Comprehensive Campaign.

NEW BUSINESS

Professor Frank Stahl, biology, gave notice of Resolution US02/03-1, seeking a peaceful means to resolve the conflict with Iraq (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/US023-1.html for full text of the resolution) and provided a handout explaining the resolution. He encouraged each Senate member to read the document.

ADJOURNMENT

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:09 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary